Governance Manager's discrimination and unfair dismissal claims rejected
A Governance Manager who brought multiple claims of discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal after being made redundant has lost her case. The tribunal ordered her to pay £20,000 in costs.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Governance Manager from 29 July 2019 until redundancy on 2 April 2020.
- The claimant is deaf and declared her disability on her job application.
- The respondent made the claimant's role redundant due to cost savings and outsourcing.
- The tribunal found no evidence of discrimination or detriment related to protected characteristics or disclosures.
- All claims were dismissed, and the claimant was ordered to pay £20,000 in costs.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Ms Hickey commenced work as Governance Manager for My Space Housing Solutions.
-
Minutes dispute
The claimant was questioned about the accuracy of minutes she had taken for a senior managers' meeting.
-
Quarterly return prank
Mr Qureshi joked about not knowing about the quarterly return, which the claimant found upsetting.
-
Claimant went on sick leave
The claimant started a period of absence due to illness.
-
Redundancy proposal
The Board approved a proposal to make the Governance Manager role redundant and outsource the function.
-
Redundancy letter sent
The claimant was informed her role was at risk of redundancy for economic reasons.
-
Grievance meeting (first day)
A grievance meeting began with external HR consultant Angela Furness; it was adjourned due to a conflict of interest issue.
-
Grievance meeting (second day)
The grievance meeting reconvened and lasted about 4 hours with breaks; the claimant declined a lunch break.
-
Dismissal by reason of redundancy
The claimant's employment was terminated due to redundancy.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding no discrimination, victimisation, or unfair dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to direct sex or disability discrimination, harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, detriment for protected disclosures, or automatic unfair dismissal, and whether the respondent's actions were motivated by protected characteristics or disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the claimant.
The key reason was that the redundancy was a genuine economic decision, and there was no evidence that the claimant's disability, sex, or any protected disclosure influenced the process or outcome.
Compensation breakdown:
- No compensation awarded as all claims were dismissed.
- The claimant was ordered to pay £20,000 in costs due to the unreasonable conduct of the proceedings.
Lessons & takeaways
- Bringing multiple discrimination claims without evidence can lead to significant costs orders against you.
- A genuine redundancy situation can be a fair reason for dismissal even if the employee has a disability.
- Tribunals will scrutinise whether decisions were motivated by protected characteristics, but a lack of evidence will result in dismissal of claims.
- If you are unrepresented, it is especially important to focus on claims with a solid factual basis.
A case of multiple claims but no discrimination
This case shows what happens when an employee brings a wide range of discrimination and unfair dismissal claims but cannot provide evidence to support them. The claimant, a Governance Manager who is deaf, was made redundant after less than a year in the role. She alleged that her redundancy was motivated by her disability, sex, and protected disclosures she had made about governance issues.
The tribunal carefully examined each claim, including allegations of harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and unfair dismissal. However, it found that the redundancy was a genuine business decision driven by cost savings and outsourcing. There was no evidence that the claimant's disability or sex played any part in the decision, nor that any protected disclosure had been made or caused detriment.
What the respondent did right
The respondent, My Space Housing Solutions, was able to show that the redundancy process was fair and that the decision was made before the claimant went on sick leave. The tribunal noted that the claimant's role was genuinely redundant and that the respondent had followed a proper consultation process. The fact that the claimant was on sick leave did not make the dismissal automatically unfair.
Why this result matters
This case is a reminder that not every dismissal during a protected period or involving a disabled employee will be discriminatory. Tribunals will look for evidence of a causal link between the protected characteristic and the treatment. Here, the claimant's allegations were not supported by the facts, and the tribunal found that the respondent had acted reasonably. The significant costs order of £20,000 also highlights the risks of pursuing unmeritorious claims, especially when the claimant is unrepresented and the respondent incurs substantial legal costs.
Similar cases
Former employee's claim dismissed as out of time nearly six years after leaving
A former employee's unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and whistleblowing claims were thrown out after he presented them almost six years after his employment ended. The tribunal also ordered him to pay £400 in costs.
Dismissed for redundancy that wasn't genuine: a warning for employers
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to prove a genuine redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £1,921.85 in compensation.
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.
Former employee's claims struck out as out of time and for unreasonable conduct
A former employee's unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and discrimination claims have been struck out after being brought too late, with the tribunal also citing unreasonable conduct. The respondent was awarded £5,000 in costs.